Charlie Sheen Affidavit (passing mention of 9/11)

by **mother** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:34 am

Thanks for some insight into what makes people react about 9-11. I was reading the idiot posts I made on this thread yesterday, and all I can offer is that I used a huge amount of neuro-toxic cement paint without proper protection, and it looks like brain damage to me. Always use a mask.

by **thoughtographer** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:52 am

<a href="http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html">Alcoholics Anonymous as a Cult</a> by <a href="http://www.orange-papers.org/">A. Orange</a> "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **OnoI812** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:42 pm

Denise Richards is a real piece of work. Denise was a bimbo friend of Heather Locklear, and Heather set Charlie up with her when she was working on the set of "Spin City"(which is quite the ironic title, when one looks at recent events). Heather hooks up with Richie Sambora, Denise hooks up with Charlie. Now Denise files this trash after she has been seen in the intimate company of Sambora for quite some time now. Now Locklear is not talking to her former friend. Just how much role did Denise play in the breakups of these 2 high profile hollywood marriages? And why is everyone so quick to believe her trash, and attempts at extortion, and blame Charlie? There is more going on with all this than meets the eye. And BTW...Jones did an interview with Asner right after Sheen, It didn't receive much attention...Asner will not go as far as Sheen and pretty much says he's not an expert, nor has he researched as much as Charlie, but he does have his suspisions..he was very clear to stop short of saying it may have been an inside job, but believes ther needs to be "Real" independent hearings. So comparing the 2 is really apples and oranges.

by **Ike Broflovski** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:35 pm

why is everyone so quick to believe her trash, and attempts at extortion, and blame Charlie? Maybe because Charlie Sheen's fondness for booze, drugs, and hookers has been legendary for decades and their marital problems have been in the gossip pages for months? It's entirely possible that Sheen is both a) mostly correct about 9/11 and b) a total scuzzball. Why does it have to be either/or, and who cares about picking sides in some Hollywood divorce? If Asner was a young & visibly vital man, sexually, they'd be dragging him over the same coals. Give me a break. Most visibly sexually vital young men don't spend a whole lot of time with prostitutes. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ikebroflovski@rigorousintuition>Ike Broflovski</A> at: 4/25/06 1:35 pm

by **TroubleFunk** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:37 pm

Got some stats to back you up there, my friend? Or just mouthing off?

by **Ike Broflovski** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:19 pm

Stats on what percentage of young men spend less time with prostitutes than Charlie Sheen?! No, believe it or not I haven't seen any stats on that. I know that Sheen is possibly the most famous john in the world, so I think I'm on pretty safe ground. Your original claim was that if Asner were younger, he'd be dragged "over the same coals." But these "coals" are completely consistent with Sheen's public persona for the last 20 years.

by **OpLan** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:36 pm

A Hollywood actor who does booze drugs gambling and hookers?No!Tell me its not true! Anyone else in Hollywood want to get mixed up in politics rather than greasepaint?Step right up..lets see what you have in YOUR closet. Ill call Sheene a scuzzball when he starts raping hookers or mugging old ladies to pay for his gambling. Sepka wrote "If they want to argue that the US goverment blew up the WTC, though, the tactic is to point out that the government can't offer a watertight proof that terrorists did it, so that PROVES that the government themselves did it." So..we forget about Bush business connections to OBL,or CIA connections to AL Q, we forget about the whole world warning USA about the strikes,the military exercises involving radar blips,mock hijackings, we forget about the FBI agent quitting his job citing obstuction from higher up (re: his hunt for Al Qeada) and dying on his first day as head of security at the WTC.. We forget about the guy who pulled people out of the basement levels (Rodriguez) or Marvin Bushs job at the WTC.. we ignore historical similarities like tonkin,the maine,pearl harbour,or the curious <a href="http://www.911studies.com/articles3.htm" target="top">story</a> of the serviceman who claims he worked on the 911 plot back in 1976.. Quote: "McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9-11-related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target. The publicized version of the study, commissioned by Congress, was to identify security lapses and submit corrective measures to lawmakers. However, McNiven claims the real purpose of the study was to brainstorm how to pull off the perfect terrorist attack using the exact same 9-11 scenario. The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, US Army, stationed in Strasbourg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists using commercial airliners and even plastic box cutters to bypass security. To silence critics, McNiven has successfully passed a credible lie detector test regarding his participation in the study as well as other specific orders given to him by his superiors in case of a real attack on the Twin Towers. The head of the 1976 mock terrorist plan was Lt. Michael Teague of Long Island, who McNiven says was given specific orders by higher-ups in the military to use the Twin Towers as the terrorist target. McNiven said he has been unable to contact Lt. Teague, but was interested in his opinion now that "the 9/11 attacks happened the way we planned them in 1976." we put aside the bribes Bush offered to victims families in return for not asking questions,or how he stonewalled any real investigation,or how he hand picked the commitee when he begrudgingly set up the 911 commision..then we disregard the work of David Ray Griffen who pulled the official report to bits..and then ignore the work of Steven E Jones who explains why kerosene fire doesn't melt steel or pulverise concrete.. We are ordered to believe the official version even though there is very little evidence to back it up.This is basically a conspiracy theory isnt it? a story with little credible evidence? Theres no Fire Dept. report on the collapse of 3 steel framed sturctures..they werent allowed to examine the wreckage. The first time ever in history a steel structure has failed due to fire,it happens 3 times on the same day, and theres no official fire dept. report.The firemen werent happy with that. The NY Times fought tooth and claw to get the firemens radio conversations released.."2 small fires we can knock them out with 2 lines"..not forgetting the firemen describing detonations "boom boom boom boom boom boom"..then we have them disgraced with the Gap Jeans smear..firemen not willing to talk about what they saw and heard that day out of fear for their jobs.. Theres no reconstruction of the aircraft involved.Aircraft are always pieced together after a crash.All 4 aircraft vapourised? No sign of 8 black boxes.Improbable flight paths for experienced flight crew,nevermind pilots who couldnt fly a kite,let alone a giant jet.. we have one sequence of Atta going through security..wheres all the rest? a conveniently lost suitcase yields korans, a book on Jet liners for dummies,etc..a paper passport identifying a terrorist survives when nothing else does..we have video evidence at the pentagon confiscated,and 5 frames from a dubious source in their place.. ATC conversations on audio tape cut into little pieces,and disposed of in several bins to avoid reconstruction,heroic speeches made in dubious cell phone calls..the list goes on.. convenient dubious evidence and coincidences make up the bulk of supporting evidence to the official story. I suppose I have to be labelled 'Truthie'. I don't believe the official story because it smells like a dead fish.I'm more inclined to believe the work of the scholars,although Steven Jones being a Mormon is something I have only just begun to contemplate..I know next to nothing about this religion..but I don't see the relevence his faith has on his engineering knowledge. I have to confess to being a frequent visitor to PropagandaMatrix as well..I can't say Im a fervent admirer of Alex,but his articles are usually peppered with references to other peoples work,and most of them are dealing with the same corruption we explore here at RI.. One of the most recent articles deals with Steven Jones allegations of thermite..<a href="http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm" target="top">heres</a> the link..its got a <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585&q=thermite&pl=true" target="top">video</a> of a plantpot full of thermite eating its way through a car engine..its a bit better at destroying metal than kerosene..and <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet%2B9/11" target="top">heres</a> a video Dr Jones cites as Thermite burning at the WTC. I would like to see engineers debate this photograph from the same article <img src="http://propagandamatrix.com/images/april2006/240406thermite1.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Quote: "In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite," (says american free press reporter Christopher Bolleyn) I get the weird culty feeling everytime I see Bush (and others,even heavy metal fans) do the 'hookem horns' thing with his hand..and everytime I see him do that I am reminded that he worships at an effigy of a 40 foot high Owl God..and takes part in a mock child sacrifice to placate said Owl God..I get the culty feeling when I think of the Franklin scandal,or how Jeff Gannon might be a victim of abduction and mind control.. ..when I try to debate Bush believers,the only feeling I get is incredulity that they take it all as gospel..only 2 nights ago I got into a slanging match with a 'nuke Iran now' idiot who was telling everyone that a country the size of new york doesn't need 200 nuclear power plants..When I pointed out that Wikipedia makes Iran 10 times the size of New York State,he said he meant California,then Texas,then when I told him he was wrong again,he slipped into personal attacks on me..because I'm a 'liberal pinko commie fag who should be grateful I'm speaking english and not german'.. If you're American,you KNOW what happened on 911..nitpick all you want..they're a bunch of greedy sociopathic monsters ..theyre wrecking your constitution and your economy much better than any scattered network of CIA educated terrorists can. <a href="http://www.911studies.com/articles1.htm" target="top">Heres</a> a nice set of essays that Truthies might find interesting..They're all probably old hat to most here,and no doubt they have been discredited in someway or another..but readable all the same..heres a quote from the first one,by Timothy Snyder,who is an Associate Professor of History at Yale University.. "In Orwell's Oceania, falsehood and war bring impoverishment. The state impoverishes society by devoting its resources to fighting a useless war. In the atmosphere of perpetual war, Orwell suggests, people will accept not only abridgments of their freedom, but also reductions in living standards. This appears at first to be a fundamental difference between the Oceania of the novel and the America of reality. Who could accuse President Bush of opposing consumption? Yet on a deeper level, the correspondence between calculated war, calculated falsehood and calculated impoverishment holds true. It appears that the leading figures of the Bush administration had two main preoccupations before September 2001: tax cuts for the rich, and war in Iraq. The attacks of 11th September allowed them to carry out both politics. Strange as it may seem, tax cuts for the rich were presented as necessary in a time of war, and criticism of them was presented as unpatriotic. As a result, the less privileged classes of American society pay for the war in Iraq in two ways: with their lives, because the US army is drawn mainly from the poor, but also in the long run with their livelihoods. The result of big tax cuts during an expensive war has been the creation of a truly frightening national debt. The national debt, about $7.4 trillion, is currently increasing by about $1.69bn a day. President Bush's last budget included an annual deficit of more than $500bn – a record. More than one in eight Americans now lives below the official poverty line. Over the long run, the increase of government debt means a reduction of government services to the American poor."

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Heres a nice set of essays that Truthies might find interesting.<hr></blockquote> I'd beware of 911studies.com just based on the Jack White 'photo analysis' which is there. Very fishy that guy. I went through his 'analysis' of Pentagon photos and found him to be rediculous. Dozens of photos about 'photoshopped lawns and guardrails' that didn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Jack White seems to create controversy where there is none and distracts from where there is controversy. But this is my opinion just from looking at his Pentagon photos. I've read other people's comments about him regarding other topics, too, but I saved my judgement until I saw his stuff myself. I do think thermite does have a significant role in the collapse of buildings that day but I'm not interested in Jack White who writes that "photo analysis is more of an art than a science." Um, no it isn't. It is fucking physics. That's a science. Period.

by **Qutb** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:38 am

Sepka said - "To speak frankly, it's frustration, pure and simple. I feel it myself when trying to have a discussion with the "911 Truth" people. No offense, but it's much like trying to have a discussion about science with a Creationist. From an outside perspective you people seem brainwashed, like some sort of cult." Amen. "It is all the more frustrating when you're getting that from people who seem to be otherwise intelligent and rational." It is. "The very fact that it's proclaimed as a "Truth Movement" just adds to that weird, cultic feel that it throws off." True. They display many of the characteristics of a cult. For instance, anyone who's less than impressed by their standards of "evidence", logic and reason is suspected of being a part of a vast conspiracy to silence them. If there's a piece on them in the media that's less than flattering, it's been ordered by the CIA. The outside world is in darkness. The Truth is known only to the initiates, who must go forth and spread the Word. And buy the books, of course, in which it's all revealed.

by **stickdog99** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:50 am

Umm, what is the supposed evidence for the "Osama & his ragtag band of 19 whomever-the-fucks did 9/11 all by their very lonesomes" conspiracy theory again? Because I'd really like to see the evidence that all you nutcase official conspiracy theory cultists keep referring to. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/26/06 4:51 am

by **Qutb** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:35 am

Stickdog, you can start with all the confessions, including the taped statement (on video) of at least one (two?) of the hijackers (but I forgot, they're all a priori brainwashed by and/or working for the CIA). Next, the phonecalls from the planes. But oh, I forgot, they were all faked by the military (and they have a really big black ops budget, so you'd be an idiot to think they didn't fake the phonecalls, of course). The warnings from 11 or so countries before the event that Osama & Co were planning something like this, which resulted in the infamous August 6 PDB: "Bin Laden determined to strike etc" (but of course, all these countries are in on it). The fact that Bush slept in an aircraft carrier during the G8 summit in Genoa i July 2001 because the CIA/Secret Service feared an attack by Bin Laden. All the connections of the hijackers to militant Islam and Bin Laden (but that's of course all a clever hoax). There are other little pieces of evidence that are to a greater or lesser extent available to the public. Atta's will, for instance, the authenticity of which was confirmed by one of those who signed it as witnesses, Abdelghani Mzoudi, to the German weekly <a href="http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-4,00.html" target="top">Der Spiegel</a>. But of course, if the facts don't fit, just assume that it's all planted and every witness, media organization etc. is in on it. Works every time. That way, you can still claim there's "no evidence".

by **slimmouse** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:54 am

And all of the above evidence you cite, leads where exactly QUTB ? Shouldnt you be fully circling the square ? Im also interested in youre citing of the FBI and their safety precautions Vis a vi the chimp in July. Im wondering how you square that fact, with the fact that the secret service allowed the chimp to finish his goat sermon when America actually WAS under attack ?

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:57 am

Let's start with the FACT that most of the "hijackers" are still alive. Let's start with the FACT that at least one of the taped "confessions" involved a man who definitively was NOT obl. Let's start with the FACT that Al-CIA-DUHHHH is an American funded front organization. Let's start with the FACT that most of the recent "terrist" operations outside the middle east have now been traced to "lone" operators who have agendas that seem to mesh with USA and not Al-CIA-DUHHHH. Let's start with the FACT that Bushco desperately needed this to happen and has used it relentlessly to pursue his criminal agenda. The "warnings" from other intellegence communities, especially Israel, were surely planted by our own spies.

by **stickdog99** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Stickdog, you can start with all the confessions, including the taped statement (on video) of at least one (two?) of the hijackers (but I forgot, they're all a priori brainwashed by and/or working for the CIA).<hr></blockquote> Where can I see these confessions? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Next, the phonecalls from the planes. But oh, I forgot, they were all faked by the military (and they have a really big black ops budget, so you'd be an idiot to think they didn't fake the phonecalls, of course).<hr></blockquote> Where can I hear these phone calls? Also, what are they supposed to prove? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The warnings from 11 or so countries before the event that Osama & Co were planning something like this, which resulted in the infamous August 6 PDB: "Bin Laden determined to strike etc" (but of course, all these countries are in on it). The fact that Bush slept in an aircraft carrier during the G8 summit in Genoa i July 2001 because the CIA/Secret Service feared an attack by Bin Laden.<hr></blockquote> Yes. Bin Laden was supposedly planning to fly planes into buildings. So why did Bush let him? And given that Bush himself was a suspected target of a "hijacked plane bomb" terrorist attack in Genoa, Italy in July 2001, how can the Bush administration possibly explain the fact that Bush kept reading The Pet Goat in a widely publicized, previously scheduled public appearance in Sarasota, FL (only 5 miles from the Sarasota International Airport and 40 miles from the Tampa International Airport) for at least 9 minutes and then remained at the school for a press conference more than 30 minutes AFTER it had become obvious to him and everyone else over 10 years old with access to breaking news that the US was dealing with a coordinated attack of suicidal terrorist hijackers? From 9/12/01 AP reports: "In Florida, Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later." Didn't it cross anybody's mind in the entire Bush entourage that the grammar school might be the terrorists' next target and that they just might want to get Bush and ALL OF THE LITTLE KIDS he was reading with out of harm's way? If not, why not? Remember that just two months before, Bush himself had been one of the suspected targets of just such a terrorist plot. Is there no one in the entire Bush administration intelligence/Secret Service entourage with a three digit IQ? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>All the connections of the hijackers to militant Islam and Bin Laden (but that's of course all a clever hoax).<hr></blockquote> Where is the evidence that the 19 people named by the FBI the day after the attacks were actually the hijackers? And even if they were, where is the evidence that their identities match the identities of the presumed individuals with "all the Bin Laden connections." And just what are all these Bin Laden connections again? And what about all of the supposed hijackers' connections to the US military, FBI informants, Florida flight schools, strip clubs, suspicious, brazen and illegal night flights and the head of the Pakistani ISI who was meeting with Porter Goss on 9/11? And what about many of the hijackers' "connections" with individuals of the same names and presumed identities who are still alive? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>There are other little pieces of evidence that are to a greater or lesser extent available to the public. Atta's will, for instance, the authenticity of which was confirmed by one of those who signed it as witnesses, Abdelghani Mzoudi, to the German weekly Der Spiegel.<hr></blockquote> And what does Atta's will prove, pray tell? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But of course, if the facts don't fit, just assume that it's all planted and every witness, media organization etc. is in on it. Works every time. That way, you can still claim there's "no evidence".<hr></blockquote> I'm still looking for the initial supporting facts that you seem to think exist. Could you please continue helping me to see the light? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/26/06 7:30 am

by **Gouda** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:04 pm

Step aside ye facts, ye showbizers, ye truthseekers, ye Albaneses. Bow to your superior... <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/26/film.united93.ap/index.html">edition.cnn.com/2006/SHOW...index.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Audience moved to tears by 'United 93' 9/11 film leads off Tribeca Film Festival NEW YORK (AP) -- The first few hours of the September 11 attacks have been imagined and replayed countless ways in the minds of many, but for the first time, a movie of that nightmare premiered on the big screen. "United 93," the first feature film to dramatize the September 11, 2001, story, opened the Tribeca Film Festival on Tuesday in front of a somber audience that included Hollywood stars, city officials and victims' relatives. "The vision is something we see in our heads every day," said Jan Snyder, whose daughter Christine was on the flight. "It's time for this. The public needs to know, they need to remember and know what the families have gone through." The 90-minute movie takes place in real time and portrays the gripping story of the flight that left Newark, New Jersey, and crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers rallied against their hijackers and tried to recapture control of the jet. At Tuesday's premiere, the screen went dark after the stomach-turning sequence showing the plane's nosedive. The theater was silent except for the gut-wrenching sobs and wails from the loge, where the relatives were seated together. Moviegoers absorbed and shared their pain. Throughout the screening, they wept, drew sharp breaths, gasped and covered their faces with their hands. They shifted in their seats, sometimes to look back at the family section. "You saw moviemaking and real life come together," said Jeffrey Sachs, a consultant from Manhattan who attended the premiere. "It fills in the mystery of what happened." Flight 93 was the fourth plane hijacked that morning, crashing near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, minutes after the first trade center tower collapsed in lower Manhattan. In the film, the Flight 93 story is juxtaposed with that of the air traffic controllers, who watched with disbelief as four planes were seized and crashed by 19 terrorists. American Airlines Flight 11 slammed first into the north tower, United Airlines 175 hit the south tower and United 77 went down at the Pentagon. Officials believe Flight 93, carrying 40 passengers and crew plus the four hijackers, was headed for the White House or the Capitol. The film uses that idea to suggest that the passenger uprising might have saved lives -- a subtle bright spot amid the heartstopping devastation. Relatives of people who were on Flight 93 collaborated with writer-director Paul Greengrass to lend authenticity to the characters and story of the movie, which opens nationwide Friday. Greengrass did take some creative license -- using what relatives told him about the victims' personalities to envision what they might have done or which role they played in the revolt. "Only 40 people truly know what happened that day and I thought he went to painstaking grounds to make it feel that all 40 of them were a part of it," said Ken Nacke, whose brother Louis J. Nacke was killed. Nacke said he found himself "rooting for them, for a different outcome." For some, seeing reminders of 9/11 on the big screen was too disturbing. A few theaters in the New York area pulled the film's trailer this spring after moviegoers complained about the upsetting images. Cindy Somma, who came from Long Island to see the premiere, described it afterward as "very upsetting, truthful, realistic and painful." Greengrass and film festival founders acknowledge that the film stirs powerful emotions but say the Tribeca gathering was appropriate for its premiere. The festival, which runs through May 7, was created to help lower Manhattan recover economically from the 2001 attacks. "Remembering is painful, it's difficult, but it can be inspiring and it can give wisdom," Greengrass told the audience before the film started. Robert De Niro, who lives and works in the neighborhood and co-founded the festival with his producing partner, Jane Rosenthal, said the film "is a story that honors bravery."<hr></blockquote>

Charlie Sheen Affidavit (passing mention of 9/11)

oops

Off-topic, RE: Scientology/A.A.

Re: Charlie Sheen Affidavit (passing mention of 9/11)

Re: Charlie Sheen Affidavit (passing mention of 9/11)

i dunno, ike

Re: i dunno, ike

Re: Charlie Sheen Affidavit (passing mention of 9/11)

Re: Charlie Sheen Affidavit (passing mention of 9/11)

Re: oops

Re: Charlie Sheen Affidavit (passing mention of 9/11)

Re: Charlie Sheen Affidavit (passing mention of 9/11)

And all of the above lead where ?

No Qutb

Re: Charlie Sheen Affidavit (passing mention of 9/11)

Re: Audience moved to tears by 'United 93'

Who is online